ddickinson: It just annoys me when you get a nice 3D game that works on, say 512MB graphics, but then you see a 2D game that looks like it is 20 years old that requires 1GB+ of graphics. So many games, especially the indie games, have specs that do not reflect the games look or gameplay. They blame it on the engine, but the fault is theirs mostly for lack of optimisation. We have an early access RTS game here that has recommended specs of 16GB of RAM and 4GB of Video RAM. For a RTS game.
I have nothing against this whole "retro" look in general, but 90% of them I feel do so just to be lazy and cut corners. And as you said, milk nostalgia. I am also tired of the amount of excuses they get to use, with so many people excusing the indie developers for underhanded methods and broken games. I don't care if a developer is AAA or indie, there should still be standards when you pay for a finished product.
If there isn't something Windows related that's causing the increased need for resources, since Microsoft's software isn't optimized either (frequently being fairly to extremely bad instead), then yes, it absolutely falls on the developers.
Read a bit on the one you're referring to. The insanely high requirements are supposed to be used for the sake of a groundbreaking level of AI quality. Not exactly getting my hopes up on that one.
I'll back a Kickstarter when I trust the team to not screw up, maybe even grab an In-Dev game if I'm impatient to check something out, but immediately latching onto the idea that someone's packing the next big thing (which is
totally worth hundreds and hundreds of dollars in upgrades) is a few steps too far on the faith scale.
-laughs- If nothing else, the standards from AAA developers and independents are often the same - they don't really have any.
Sure, some people give a damn, but they're easily outnumbered between 15 and 20 to 1.